Radar damage should be raised to 2k.

[FBKampfer]

Personally, I'm in favor of drastically reducing the ability of an attacker to impede defense in general, but making the capture itself much easier in the face of resistance.

This would promote defense, without drastically slowing down gameplay.

[Slade]

-1 on raising it for individual base radar.

+100 to make HQ\Strat raids that render radar down for the entire country require MUCH greater damage though. 


If it took the allies waves of bombers to down a key ball-bearing factory in RL maybe crippling an entire countries communications should take more than a set of Lancs? 

[bozon]

Normally I am for "historical accuracy" and "realism". However, in the case of radars and ammo bunkers, I am all for gameplay optimization, because non of it is very realistic anyway. Bunkers and to a lesser extent the radar should not be destroyed by a single fighter strafing them - it should take heavy ordnance to destroy them, bombs and rockets. This would limit the ability of a single La7 to pork a field with its (historically increadibly rare) 3 cannons.

Make things require bombs and you make bombers more useful. They have laser guided bombs which will not go away, so they may as well use it to aim for individual structures. Planes have guns to shoot at other planes.

[BuckShot]

How about a radar that is two structures?

the tower and the shack

When the shack is down, the downtime could be 1/3 or less than it would be when both are down.

Shack: easy to gun down, like we have now.

Tower: bomb or rockets required, or VERY long strafes (like a 110's entire ammo load)

[JVboob]

+1 to the two targets bit. shack and its down 15 the tower and its down for 30. hardness a shack should be what the hardness is now and the tower should be....i dunno say 2000lbs and 1 M3 could bring shack up and 2 for the tower. that would be reasonable.

[caldera]

Personally, I'm in favor of drastically reducing the ability of an attacker to impede defense in general, but making the capture itself much easier in the face of resistance.

This would promote defense, without drastically slowing down gameplay.

I like your reasoning here.   

One way to do this would to be further separate the towns from the fields and remove town ack, while beefing up field ack.  This way vulching/capping a field would be tougher and people could up to defend, but they would have to actually go to the town and fight to keep it.  Easier base takes, yet also easier for defenders to have a chance to fight back.


As for the hardening of radar, +1 or add more towers on the bases.

[icepac]

Ups c202 to strafe down radars.

[guncrasher]

Normally I am for "historical accuracy" and "realism". However, in the case of radars and ammo bunkers, I am all for gameplay optimization, because non of it is very realistic anyway. Bunkers and to a lesser extent the radar should not be destroyed by a single fighter strafing them - it should take heavy ordnance to destroy them, bombs and rockets. This would limit the ability of a single La7 to pork a field with its (historically increadibly rare) 3 cannons.

Make things require bombs and you make bombers more useful. They have laser guided bombs which will not go away, so they may as well use it to aim for individual structures. Planes have guns to shoot at other planes.

during ww2 there was no such thing as ammo bunkers most of the time.  bombs were kept out in the open same for fuel dumps.  they were kept a distance away from the base for obvious reasons.

just do a google search for it.

ammo bunkers are a peace time thing.


semp

[bozon]

during ww2 there was no such thing as ammo bunkers most of the time.  bombs were kept out in the open same for fuel dumps.  they were kept a distance away from the base for obvious reasons.

just do a google search for it.

ammo bunkers are a peace time thing.


semp

And as I said, our setting is not very realistic.

How often was a (real) base put out of action because its ammo/bombs supplies were hit? I dare say not very often, but I'd love to hear if anyone has info on the matter. If the bomb supplies were hit, were the destroyed by a fighter strafing them?

AH uses realistic physics and historical equipment modeled as close to the originals as possible. All the rest and in particular the strategy game and base capture mechanisms are 100% made up for gameplay purposes. As such they should be tweaked freely to improve the game.

[icepac]

I wish HTC had the power to tweak player realism.

[wpeters]

Strafing a ammo dump or a bomb dump in the open would be incredibly stup if for a pilot. Sympathitic detonation would kill the strafing plane.

[guncrasher]

And as I said, our setting is not very realistic.

How often was a (real) base put out of action because its ammo/bombs supplies were hit? I dare say not very often, but I'd love to hear if anyone has info on the matter. If the bomb supplies were hit, were the destroyed by a fighter strafing them?

AH uses realistic physics and historical equipment modeled as close to the originals as possible. All the rest and in particular the strategy game and base capture mechanisms are 100% made up for gameplay purposes. As such they should be tweaked freely to improve the game.

talking about realism.  how often did a pilot die only to appear again within 1 minute in another plane?



semp

[Oddball-CAF]

  I think both radar and ords should require a minimun of 3K each. This would eliminate the
one-man-porkathons and engender a bit of teamwork in attacking a field.
  As it stands, it's simply much too easy for one individual to completely disallow
offensive ops from a field and comletely "blind" it... all with a single plane in a single
sortie.
  Actually, the whole system needs to be addressed. 

   Regards, Odd
 

[bozon]

talking about realism.  how often did a pilot die only to appear again within 1 minute in another plane?



semp

I don't understand if you are trying to prove my point or contradict me.
The argument above suggests the former.

[guncrasher]

I don't understand if you are trying to prove my point or contradict me.
The argument above suggests the former.

actually being sarcastic about your definition of realism.



semp